Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
InvestigatesPlanning SubmissionsA SERIES OF unusual and possibly unfounded planning objections to veterinary practices in Dublin, Meath and Kildare has raised questions about who is doing them – and why.
“I came as close as I’ve ever come to having a nervous breakdown,” said David*, a vet in Dublin about planning issues he faced for his practice.
The Journal Investigates reviewed planning objections for veterinary practices over the past seven years and found a pattern of objections to new practices.
While the majority of applications received no objections and others received submissions from residents’ associations, a number of proposed practices in Leinster received submissions that followed a similar pattern.
These included objections from people living hundreds of kilometres away and repeat objections from people who share the same name, but gave different addresses each time.
Some also provided personal mailboxes rented from private companies, masking their actual address.
Anyone can provide an observation, either objecting or supporting, to a planning application and there are no disqualifiers in terms of how close a person must live to a proposed development.
However, you must include the name and address of the person making the observation and pay a €20 fee.
This is a relatively low bar to clear, allowing the planning process to be as open and accessible as possible. Once you have made a submission, a local authority will consider it when making a decision on the planning application. By making a submission, you’re also entitled to appeal a planning decision to An Bord Pleanála.
This is what happened to David. While the cost of appealing to An Bord Pleanála is substantially higher at €220 for a third-party, it also comes with a potentially greater impact due to delays at the statutory body in recent years.
David said he believes these objections are being submitted to frustrate people, but also to slow down the opening of businesses.
The Journal Investigates asked the local authorities that received these submissions whether they had received any complaints regarding the veracity of planning submissions.
No council said they were aware of any complaints.
They told us all submissions must comply with the regulations and that submissions are not given different considerations based on the location of the submitter.
They also added that they can request further information on the submissions if necessary.
The submission made against David’s practice mentioned an increase in traffic, noise and concentration of dogs in the surrounding area. The submission was also made on the last day it was possible to make a submission.
Planning was granted by the council but it was appealed to An Bord Pleanála by the same person who made the submission. Once again, the appeal application was made on the last day it was possible to submit an appeal.
The appeal was lodged in July 2022 and a final decision was not made until August 2023, when An Bord Pleanála upheld the council’s decision to grant permission.
During this time, David still had to pay for rent on the premises and by the time planning was granted, the cost of materials had gone up. “Conservatively, it cost me at least €150,000,” David said.
David said that he “basically ran out of money” during this time, and he had to borrow from friends and family until a private lender “came to the rescue”.
“I was looking at a situation where I was going to have literally nothing,” David said. If he hadn’t gotten the help from the private lender, he said he was going to have to make his seven employees redundant and possibly lose his existing business.
Just one month before the submission was made to David’s planning application, a submission was made objecting to another veterinary practice on the other side of Dublin.
This submission was made by someone with the same name, but provided a different address. It also raised similar concerns relating to traffic and the increased concentration of dogs in the area, suggesting that it would lead to frequent soiling of the footpaths.
The Journal Investigates reviewed land registry details for both addresses listed on the submissions. Both are owned by businesses, with no apparent relationship with the person named in the objections.
Planning was again granted by the council, though this time it wasn’t appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
This is not the only instance The Journal Investigates found planning objections made against veterinary practices.
Planning applications for veterinary practices in Dublin, Meath and Kildare all received submissions from someone with the same name.
The two submissions in Meath and Kildare are practically identical, with just a single line contained in the submission. They both read “I would like to object to this development proposal” without providing any further details.
Both provided the same private mailbox as their address.
The council granted planning permission to both developments. However, an appeal to An Bord Pleanála was submitted in the case of the Meath application. Similar to the other appeal, it was lodged on the very last day possible.
After over a year, An Bord Pleanála upheld the local authority’s decision, though it revised some of the conditions attached.
The appeal decision stated that the “appellant’s points…are not relevant to the appeal in hand given the information on file” and further added that other points raised were “without basis in actual fact”.
A third submission from the same name was submitted objecting to a veterinary practice in Dublin in March of this year. The submission is far more detailed than the previous two, but doesn’t provide any address.
Planning permission was granted for this development, however, at the time of writing, the window to appeal to An Bord Pleanála remains open.
This application and the one Meath also received a second objection.
The objection to the Dublin application was received from a named person who provided a self-service parcel locker location as their address. The use of these lockers, like the private mailbox, masks the full identity of those objecting to the planning application.
David argued that using these methods of masking a real address “makes a farce of the whole planning system”.
The Journal Investigates asked the planning authorities that have received submissions using these addresses whether they are valid. One local authority said, “once a full address is supplied, then the submission would be accepted.” Another added that issues with addresses are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
In the Meath planning application, another person with a different name made a submission.
This second submission in the Meath application provided an address in a business park. This address is also shared with the admin office of Village Vets, a chain of veterinary practices located across Dublin, Meath, Cork and Wicklow.
There is no online evidence of someone with the name given on the submission being employed by or connected to Village Vets and it is possible that the address was used on the planning application by someone else.
We asked the company about this planning objection and whether the objection was lodged by Village Vets or a person linked to Village Vets but did not receive a reply before publication.
There is no suggestion that the objection is not a well-founded or proper objection, which is up to the planning authority to decide.
The Journal Investigates could not independently verify that the name on the planning submission is connected to Village Vets in any way.
In a separate case, one objection made against a planning application for a veterinary practice in Dublin was received from someone in Cork, some 220km away.
The submission differs from the others as it provides an actual residential address.
However, it consisted of just one line, stating: “I would like to make an observation on the above application, I would contend that the application for a Veterinary Clinic at this site is unsuitable and unnecessary.”
Planning was initially granted for this development, though on the last day allowed for appeals, a nine-page appeal was lodged with An Bord Pleanála.
The appeal report was prepared by a Dublin-based planning consultancy firm. It cited concerns surrounding the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area, traffic management issues and compliance with health and safety standards.
Eleven weeks later, An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission with revised conditions.
This isn’t the only time a planning objection has been made from several counties away.
The Irish Independent reported about a different planning application in 2022 related to a pet crematorium in Ennis. It received an objection from a person with a different name to any of the cases already mentioned, based in Meath.
The initial submission contained just a single line, which stated: “I would like to make an observation on the above application, I would contend that the application for a crematorium at this site is unsuitable and unnecessary.”
This development was initially granted by Clare County Council, but was appealed to An Bord Pleanála by the objector. A report was submitted by the same planning consultancy firm hired in the previous case.
*Name has been changed
Reporter: Conor O’Carroll • Editor: Maria Delaney • Main Image Design: Lorcan O’Reilly
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The low bar to object is just wrong. You should have to verify that you have a bona fide reason for an objection. Its a complete joke. But then again government is involved
@Oh Mammy: #notmygovernment. Tories out
@S Suilleabhain: all out
@Oh Mammy: ffg is your manta grow up
@Oh Mammy: We all know of a particular confectionery related man who devotes himself to nationwide and widespread objections.
Looking at Galway, the serial objectors did their best to prevent the building of a sewerage treatment plant that has been a massive benefit since being built.
They had a huge victory in succeeding to sabotage permission for the building of the proposed Galway bypass – all because of the presence of “rare bogcotton” on the proposed route.
A disgraceful and much more disruptive route is now being pushed through, with it cutting through two lovely village areas, commercial areas, and racecourse.
That’s if the serial objectors don’t succeed in sabotaging the plans again.
No wonder our housing industry is in such crisis.
@Thomas Sheridan: that particular guy is a gun for hire and has made a very good living out of serial objections to roads all over the country.
@Ulysses 31: your own Tories cut the funding for those, even after the psychological distress caused by COVID.
@Robert Halvey: you’re wrong, very wrong
@H Woo: FFG = by the book UK conservatives. Right country
I know someone who made an objection against a planning application for a house extension. He then approached the home owner looking for money to withdraw the objection. Bad move that ended the way most people would be delighted with.
@Ulysses 31: You want Tommy to tell you to “mind your own fkn business”? Strange request!!
@Tommy Roche: except there is no provision in legislation to withdraw a submission. Once it has been submitted, it cannot be withdrawn. The person that made the submission can’t ask the planning authority to ignore their submission at a later date but that is done at the discretion of of the planning authority
@Ulysses 31: mini your own fkn business!!!
@Tommy Roche: My neighbours built a house in their garden without planning permission and didn’t keep to the height restrictions. The people in the garden house can look right in my back patio door. Yet someone a few doors down wants to build an extension and they have to do shadow testing among other things before they can get planning permission.
Why is there so many begrugers in this country, if a neighbor is trying to put an extension on their house or open a little business in their spare room ya should support them not object and been able to object to planning permission that is 100km away is just mental but that is how our little country works
@Nikki Swift: it’s crazy.
@Nikki Swift:
You are blaming the wrong people.
The problem isn’t frivolous objections, you will always get your crackpots, it’s that they can delay a project by sometimes years!!
Other countries can deal with them in a few months.
And that is the government and the lawyers fault.
@Fergus O’Donnell: should not be able to object unless you live in the area ,the fact that you can is a joke
@P. J.: Peter sweetman is a professional planning objecter country wide
So in one case, a one line objection without verification of who’s making it or having any reason beyond one line saying they object, then appeals it and it takes 13 months for the appeal to be rejected.
While in another an appeal had some detailed report by a professional company, yet took only 11 weeks to be rejected.
Odd.
@ben wu: people just submit the one line objection without providing any detail so it opens the avenue of being able to appeal to An Bord Pleanala. An Bord Pleanala will not accept an appeal if proof of a submission at the application stage is not submitted with the appeal.
@Niall Boyle: Yes, but of the 2 cases that mentioned a timeline, one added additional reasons and was sorted in about 3 months, the other didn’t seem to have any further reasons but took 13 months. It should be the other way around.
Eh, why not publish the name/s of the objector/s? Leo & Jack were called out for their submissions in relation to Lidl in Castleknock.
@Sean O’Callaghan: The names and addresses of the objectors along with the objection is posted on the planning Dept website with the application? It has to be, otherwise you can’t object to An Bord Pleanala.
@Steve Davis: Very easy so for the Journal to identify them and publish their names if they’re serial objectors.
@Sean O’Callaghan: very easy for you to check it also.
@Geraldine Donoghue: I’m not the investigative journalist.
Another Vet not wanting competition -
@D: no shlt Sherlock!
Good investigative journalism. I hope the Planning Board and management review their procedures.
@D Farrell: Hardly….. one letter of FOI to ABP. He probably did it over a cup of tea. He should send one in to Garda HQ to uncover the €6m A MONTH of taxpayers money they pay to Tetra Ireland, just to use their radios – which only yesterday were declared useless in a big storm…
I understand and believe our planning laws where originally created to allow the individual to object against corporate and other largesse groups from building inappropriate buildings in thier neighbourhood, but like nearly every law it’s open to abuse ,
@Robert Halvey: the amount of eyesores around the country would say it’s not open to abuse but continuously abused and ignored.
There are probably legitimate reasons to have planning objections open to all, but there should be criteria that facilitates dismissing those objections from far a field swiftly.
Middle class professionals coming out much more vocal this time about the corrupt and redundant red tape friendly FFG and all their buddies
Maybe there’s a bit of hope left for Ireland to finally have a government that is not blue shirt.
@Ulysses 31: nope you’ve misidentified someone again. Afraid I just use one account, I’m fairly consistent too in my contempt for FFG so maybe you just need to put the wine down ?
@Ulysses 31: you’re hilarious haha !! the ffg lads helped keep abortion rights completely off the table for most until 2018, they ALWAYS sided with the church what you mean is people power drove these agendas, now you expect others to show the same misplaced gratitude for our beloved politicians for them ! Haha !
@Ulysses 31: it’s thanks to the people,the govt delayed every step of the way
@Ulysses 31: gas! Multi tròller is paranoid & grasping at straws as to call out other normal (singular) commentors. You’ve been on here tòô much man. Get yòùr life back. Get help.
@Ulysses 31: You’re a bit sad really. Up all night? Jaysus.
@Ulysses 31: do you sleep ? Are you ever not emotionally dysregulated?
Full name and address of the individual who objects and a copy of their driving licence and / or an official letter with their name and address on it. These objections should be made public. No mailbox objections anymore
@Billy Carroll: opens a can of worms from a GDPR point of view
Only objections from people on the local voting registry should be allowed, holiday home and Airbnb investors mostly responsible for locals getting a home planning stopped.
It has always been a point of contention.
Seriously inept and under qualified and demonstratably corruptables making decisions far beyond their remit.
Far too many residential buildings are used for business, and planning regimes need to both stop this loss of homes, and reverse the conversions . Business premises should be centred on retail/ industrial sites, not in residential neighbourhoods.
There was also an article in the Sunday Times. I believe, about how Village Vets were getting a cash injection from Inflexion, a UK private equity firm. I wonder how their shareholders feel about funding a company that’s abusing the planning system while we have a homeless and housing crisis? Hardly a great look…
@David The Vet: *correction: how they would feel, if it were true. There’s no suggestion in the article that the above is the case.
Again. Anything about animal cruelty I will not read. Far too upsetting. I will just use Chat GPT4 to harvest the names of the perpetrators. Thanks Journal.
I remember reading that article in the Indo about how a “Don Weldon” in Trim objected to the pet crematorium in Ennis, and how the address was registered to a “Dawn Weldon” who worked for the Trim crematorium owned by Village Vets!
One wonders if the key to this is one of thr largest family owned businesses in the world diversifying into Vet work in Ireland…. What’s the 4th rock from the sun ???
Money in dirt.
I had a very bad experience with Village Vets a few years ago. It’s a money factory, nothing else. No code of ethics at all, so I would expect the worst from them.
Karma. My cat was abused in front of me at Village Vets. I complained and asked to see the notes the vet had made on the visit. She listed five examination procedures she had not done any. Eventually I was offered a refund, the refund came from a property management company. Who exactly runs village vets? Maybe someone with a grudge against Village Vets?
have your say